Burden of proof

[rosey]

Atheists/Agnostics generally claim that the burden of proof is upon the religious, particularly the Christian religious. If you ask them to disprove the Resurrection of Christ, the flood, etc., they remind you that you have the burden of proof, not them, so it's up to you to prove it, not them to disprove it. But to me, the burden of proof is generally on those who provide new ideas/theories that are against the establishment. Christianity was the establishment for round abouts 1700 years, and then all of a sudden the Atheists show up during the enlightenment with their wild new ideas and theories, and have the audacity to say Christians have the burden of proof. Please explain to me how this is possible. It is the atheistic ideas that are much more recent. You must provide ample evidence for your claims.

[stubbornone]

'Umbrage', like 'beauty' is frequently in the 'eye of the beholder.'
I think that one of the areas in which we differ is in how inclusively we apply the term 'illogical.'

For example, the Hitchens quote in my current sig:
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence� seems perfectly logical to me. Do you find it illogical?

One of the reasons some are attracted to science, to agnosticism, to 'soft' atheism is that they all are logical positions from which one needs nothing but objective experience to maintain one's position.

Christianity requires a leap of faith* that is entirely different from the reasonable assumptions of science that are based on repeated objective experience and repeated experiments and observations.

______________________________
I am aware of the fallacy of equivocation that is used by those with religious faith to make the false claim that we all have 'faith,' thus putting subjective faith in the same category as scientific conclusion based on a colloquial definition of 'faith.'

Interesting, if atheism has no burden of proof, no evidence, then we can dismiss it entirely by your own reasoning can we not?

And THAT is indeed the point.

Logic states that ALL claims must be supported or they are illogical.

There are several open threads at the moment that play out the Christian burden of support, and the best that can be rebutted is that it is not completely convincing ... an acknowledgement that is already on record when we Christians acknowledge the element of faith required to reach the conclusion, as in a leap from preponderance to certainty.

The opposite, from atheism, is not a compelling preponderance of the evidence case, its ... the claim that atheism has no burden of support, that it has no evidence and requires none.

Now, which one can be most easily and readily rejected in terms of logic?

That is the main point.

However, when the later point makers insist not just that they are logical, but in castigating the logic of their adversaries, it is indeed logical to assume that emotion is not just involved but paramount.

Claiming that the observations are 'personal' is indeed taking umbrage rather than offering an explanation as to how the concept is logical rather than emotional.

Atheism, at least as I have defined it, is not so much a belief as it is the absence of belief. Atheism is what remains when one only accepts objective evidence.

I think your frustration comes from a failure to recognize this difference between 'soft' atheism and religious faith. I fully admit the former is much easier to 'prove' because it requires no proof. My kind of atheism is the default position after Centuries of science and objective observation.

Since I realize this is an unacceptable position to you, what label would you give to a belief system that is willing to accept only that which is proved by science and empirical observation; that accepts the natural and does not believe in the supernatural* with out competent evidence?

Another way to put this would be to say 'I accept god as a hypothetical construct if one can define 'god' in a way to make it a falsifiable belief.' If 'god' cannot be falsifiable than it can't even qualify as a hypothetical.
________________________
*Today's 'supernatural' could become tomorrows 'natural' upon sufficient evidence.

That is semantics. You have concluded that there is no God.

Either there is something that lead you to conclude that, and is thus, at least at face value, a logical conclusion, or ...

You simply declared there is no God, and the entire premise rests upon nothing ... and in your own words, can be rejected as nothing.

Atheism must be one or the other.

Neither life, nor my thinking is as simple as you suggest.

You can attempt to put your words into my mouth, but does not accomplish your purpose.

Logic is a standard Dan, you either accept it or you do not.

Either atheism is a conclusion that rests upon explainable facts and inferences or it is not. If its the former, then, as atheists claim, it is logic (albeit with varying degrees of support from the adherents of atheism.) If it is the later ... is simply not logical.

This is not about YOUR words or even MY words. Its about apply standards objectively, in this case, the standards of logic.

When atheists claim they have no burden of proof, they are simply, and utterly, rejecting the standards of logic.

It really is that simple.

[d.thomas]

Examples of unfalsifiable entities which could be swapped with leprechauns:

• - Santa
  - Easter Bunny
  - Tooth Fairy
  - Big Foot
  - Ogopogo
  - Chupacabra
  - Satan
  - Allah
  - Angels
  - Ghosts
  - Demons

All invisible gods, not just Allah, and The Invisible Pink Unicorn can be added to that list. How do we know it's invisible, because we can't see her.

[Goat]

.



No one mentions the burden of proof when applied to leprechauns or tooth fairies but mention the non belief in ancient invisible gods and all of a sudden people go absolutely nuts as if their world of make belief is going to crumble. This thread is nothing but entertaining for those that don't believe in Thor, Vishnu, Zeus, or any number of invisible gods, I can't name them all. Theists can't stand the fact that the burden of proof is on them because they have nothing.



.

That is because Leprechauns have been provably falsified.

Hum. A claim. Please show where Leprechauns have been 'provably falsified'. Show the articles.

[stubbornone]

Examples of unfalsifiable entities which could be swapped with leprechauns:

• - Santa
  - Easter Bunny
  - Tooth Fairy
  - Big Foot
  - Ogopogo
  - Chupacabra
  - Satan
  - Allah
  - Angels
  - Ghosts
  - Demons

I am only going to do one, because, quite frankly, the tactic you are using is not just fallacious in the extreme, its also extraordinarily lazy in that it requires OTHERS to prove things for you rather than YOU conducting an inestigation and reaching a conclusion ... its merely a set up for an argument from absurdity, atheist baseball.

Santa claims to live in the North Pole, using the fascinating modern technology, we have mapped the North Pole, go underneath it with submarines, have air tracking control systems (both passive and active), and we have found time and again that it is parents rather than a mythical Santa that places presents under trees ... none of which detracts form the reality of a very Real Saint Nicholas upon which the more fanciful tale rests.

Ergo, its reasonable and logical to conclude that Santa is a myth.

It is even more interesting that the more fantastical claims of Santa are added merely to placate the 'secular' tendencies of atheism, who have no problem with Santa per sea ... save the utter inability to figure out why he is a myth?

Once again, if we are struggling to reach conclusions and apply logical standards to problem sets ... that is a problem for atheism.

Imagine for a second why billions would think God is quite real, but those same billions reject Santa. Now, what do you think billions of people grasp that perhaps you are not grasping that allows them, but not you, to make such a delineation?

Might this just be a fallacious appeal to the guilt by association fallacy? A desperate attempt to avoid the fact that NOTHING lead you to conclude that there is no God? And if NOTHING lead you to a conclusion ... then you don;t have one do you?

All you have is nihilism, spite for religion. And quite frankly, who cares about the emotional state of people lead by NOTHING to dislike religion?

[dianaiad]

Theists, let's try something different for a moment, and join me in a little exercise...

I'm an agnostic atheist. I lack a belief in god. I make no claims about god's existence or lack thereof. I simply don't know. I don't even know if it's possible. After reviewing all the evidence, I'm still not convinced.

What evidence do you expect me to be burdened with?

I


You?

None.

But you are not, by any means, the sort of atheist we theist types get frustrated with.

I'll give you an example of the sort of thing we come across quite frequently; a script, if you will, of a typical exchange:

Atheist: there is no God. There's no evidence for a god, and I know that there isn't one.

Theist: That's quite a claim. Care to prove that there is no god?

Atheist: Not my problem. YOU have to prove that there IS one.

Theist; There is a difference between 'I don't believe in a god" and "I know that there isn't one." You said the latter. It's a claim. You prove it.

Atheist: atheism means nothing except a lack of belief in a deity or deities. I don't have to prove anything. There is no god.

Theist: (sigh).

Most of us theist types...at least, most who have encountered atheists on debate forums, anyway, are quite aware that there are two forms of atheism; 'soft' atheism is what all atheists CLAIM atheism is, when they get challenged on anything; a simple lack of belief in a deity or deities.

However, when you get to those who cross the line into 'strong' atheism, or a very positive declaration "THERE IS NO GOD!", then the burden of proof IS on that atheist.

I've never seen one admit it, though. Or rather, I've never seen a 'strong' atheist admit it.

I have a simple formula. I'm a 'soft' atheist, but that is not the end of the matter. There is a large class of beliefs that simply do not fit with everything else we know about science; beliefs that require a belief in magic, the supernatural, or some process that science cannot verify.

Neither 'soft' atheists nor theists take a simple 'Gosh, I don't know' approach to 99.99% of these beliefs, but at best all agree these beliefs are unlikely at best.

This is where the old line comes in; 'We are both atheists. I just believe in one less ''god'' than you do.' In other words, it is fair for a 'soft' atheist to say I am not absolutely certain there is no god; I just think it unlikely. In that context I have no problem with saying I have no burden of proof. If they didn't already have the burden of proof as 'he who alleges,' the burden shifts to those who want to prove anything supernatural or magical.

I believe I agreed with you on the 'soft atheism' bit. The problem doesn't lie with the 'soft' atheist approach. Saying "I don't believe you" isn't a claim. Saying "I see no reason to believe in a deity" isn't a claim. Both are simple expressions of a personal opinion.

It's only with the 'there is no god" idea that the problem arises.

...........or with those who claim all these positive attributes for atheists: rationality, scientific, reasonable, peaceful, loving, better than....

....and then when challenged on any of 'em, retreat to the 'atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods" idea.

[stubbornone]

.



No one mentions the burden of proof when applied to leprechauns or tooth fairies but mention the non belief in ancient invisible gods and all of a sudden people go absolutely nuts as if their world of make belief is going to crumble. This thread is nothing but entertaining for those that don't believe in Thor, Vishnu, Zeus, or any number of invisible gods, I can't name them all. Theists can't stand the fact that the burden of proof is on them because they have nothing.



.

That is because Leprechauns have been provably falsified.

Hum. A claim. Please show where Leprechauns have been 'provably falsified'. Show the articles.

First question: Do you ever participate in an actual discussion? Or do you simply demand that people do things for you?

Lets try ANOTHER falsification, a concept that ANOTHER atheist is struggling with.

So, Leprechauns are claimed to be making shoes all across Ireland. Once again, using this fascinating modern mapping tools, and the fact that Ireland isn't exactly wild, and that we have no little shoe factories anywhere on Ireland ... it would be reasonable, given the evidence that we expect to find - and having found none - that Leprechauns do not exist.

Que the standard argument from absurdity wherein unproveable claims are now inserted.

In the mean time. Please explain to me whether or not prayer to God are answered?

Funny thing, we can find evidence of that:

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/prayer.html

Hmmm ... is that something there definitively God? Nope, but it certainly isn;t the nothing of Leprechaun shoes.

Now, would someone explain to me why atheists, so logical, not only cannot figure this out? But whose sole contributions consists of misery disagreement with arguments that they themselves cannot seem to produce?

Once again:

Atheists, until you prove your atheis ... llogical.

[stubbornone]

Theists, let's try something different for a moment, and join me in a little exercise...

I'm an agnostic atheist. I lack a belief in god. I make no claims about god's existence or lack thereof. I simply don't know. I don't even know if it's possible. After reviewing all the evidence, I'm still not convinced.

What evidence do you expect me to be burdened with?

I


You?

None.

But you are not, by any means, the sort of atheist we theist types get frustrated with.

I'll give you an example of the sort of thing we come across quite frequently; a script, if you will, of a typical exchange:

Atheist: there is no God. There's no evidence for a god, and I know that there isn't one.

Theist: That's quite a claim. Care to prove that there is no god?

Atheist: Not my problem. YOU have to prove that there IS one.

Theist; There is a difference between 'I don't believe in a god" and "I know that there isn't one." You said the latter. It's a claim. You prove it.

Atheist: atheism means nothing except a lack of belief in a deity or deities. I don't have to prove anything. There is no god.

Theist: (sigh).

Most of us theist types...at least, most who have encountered atheists on debate forums, anyway, are quite aware that there are two forms of atheism; 'soft' atheism is what all atheists CLAIM atheism is, when they get challenged on anything; a simple lack of belief in a deity or deities.

However, when you get to those who cross the line into 'strong' atheism, or a very positive declaration "THERE IS NO GOD!", then the burden of proof IS on that atheist.

I've never seen one admit it, though. Or rather, I've never seen a 'strong' atheist admit it.

I have a simple formula. I'm a 'soft' atheist, but that is not the end of the matter. There is a large class of beliefs that simply do not fit with everything else we know about science; beliefs that require a belief in magic, the supernatural, or some process that science cannot verify.

Neither 'soft' atheists nor theists take a simple 'Gosh, I don't know' approach to 99.99% of these beliefs, but at best all agree these beliefs are unlikely at best.

This is where the old line comes in; 'We are both atheists. I just believe in one less ''god'' than you do.' In other words, it is fair for a 'soft' atheist to say I am not absolutely certain there is no god; I just think it unlikely. In that context I have no problem with saying I have no burden of proof. If they didn't already have the burden of proof as 'he who alleges,' the burden shifts to those who want to prove anything supernatural or magical.

I believe I agreed with you on the 'soft atheism' bit. The problem doesn't lie with the 'soft' atheist approach. Saying "I don't believe you" isn't a claim. Saying "I see no reason to believe in a deity" isn't a claim. Both are simple expressions of a personal opinion.

It's only with the 'there is no god" idea that the problem arises.

...........or with those who claim all these positive attributes for atheists: rationality, scientific, reasonable, peaceful, loving, better than....

....and then when challenged on any of 'em, retreat to the 'atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods" idea.

Atheism is not claiming that it disagrees, its claiming the opposite.

Let's test that. If one say, "I don;t think there is a God," and I say, "Well, I disagree, but I don;t have to explain why because I am merely disagreeing with you and have no burden of proof."

Would any atheist accept that by such logic, it would be clear that God exists? Of course not. So why o why are atheists asking Christians to accept such silliness about God denial?

Right, because its not logical.

Either something lead you to conclude that there is no God or there is not. If its the later, then its not logical.

It really is that simple.

And when atheists are claiming that their conclusions rest upon logic, and logic is a set of objective PUBLIC standards, all we have to do is apply those standard to the claims of atheism.

Its interesting to see how 'logical' people have reacted to the application of logic to their claims.

[d.thomas]

Examples of unfalsifiable entities which could be swapped with leprechauns:

• - Santa
  - Easter Bunny
  - Tooth Fairy
  - Big Foot
  - Ogopogo
  - Chupacabra
  - Satan
  - Allah
  - Angels
  - Ghosts
  - Demons

I am only going to do one, because, quite frankly, the tactic you are using is not just fallacious in the extreme, its also extraordinarily lazy in that it requires OTHERS to prove things for you rather than YOU conducting an inestigation and reaching a conclusion ... its merely a set up for an argument from absurdity, atheist baseball.

Santa claims to live in the North Pole, using the fascinating modern technology, we have mapped the North Pole, go underneath it with submarines, have air tracking control systems (both passive and active), and we have found time and again that it is parents rather than a mythical Santa that places presents under trees ... none of which detracts form the reality of a very Real Saint Nicholas upon which the more fanciful tale rests.

Ergo, its reasonable and logical to conclude that Santa is a myth.

It is even more interesting that the more fantastical claims of Santa are added merely to placate the 'secular' tendencies of atheism, who have no problem with Santa per sea ... save the utter inability to figure out why he is a myth?

Once again, if we are struggling to reach conclusions and apply logical standards to problem sets ... that is a problem for atheism.

Imagine for a second why billions would think God is quite real, but those same billions reject Santa. Now, what do you think billions of people grasp that perhaps you are not grasping that allows them, but not you, to make such a delineation?

Might this just be a fallacious appeal to the guilt by association fallacy? A desperate attempt to avoid the fact that NOTHING lead you to conclude that there is no God? And if NOTHING lead you to a conclusion ... then you don;t have one do you?

All you have is nihilism, spite for religion. And quite frankly, who cares about the emotional state of people lead by NOTHING to dislike religion?

Anyone that finds Santa at the North Pole is sworn to secrecy, so the actual location is not known. Apparently a maze of mirrors are used to deflect snow in every direction so his location can't be photographed.

God is invisible and no matter what, photography, radar, infrared, or anything else we try will not detect him. Even the Hubble telescope has not found Heaven, the place where he resides. You see how this works?

[stubbornone]

Examples of unfalsifiable entities which could be swapped with leprechauns:

• - Santa
  - Easter Bunny
  - Tooth Fairy
  - Big Foot
  - Ogopogo
  - Chupacabra
  - Satan
  - Allah
  - Angels
  - Ghosts
  - Demons

All invisible gods, not just Allah, and The Invisible Pink Unicorn can be added to that list. How do we know it's invisible, because we can't see her.

How can a unicorn be both pink and invisible? Right, it cannot.

Another one added to the fallacy band wagon, wherein setting up test to confirm or deny, the stuff of basic science, has been utterly rejected just so atheists do not have to question their faith ... a the derision and disrespect it has bred towards others.

Oddly enough, right out of the proof that atheists, so keen to answer these question, skipped:

"All other factors being equal, reasonable expectations can determine when an absence of apparent evidence constitutes a proposition as false. Here we ask how much evidence should we expect in relation to what we have. For example, if someone claims there is a gorilla in the room - the fact that we cannot see the gorilla, hear the gorilla, etc., is an absence of evidence that disproves this proposition. However, if someone says there is a mosquito in the room, then an absence of evidence (not seeing or hearing it) does not disprove the proposition because our reasonable expectations of evidence have changed. In more borderline cases, we should avoid dogmatic conclusions on both sides, for example:

“No one has ever proved that Bigfoot exists, so it must not exist.�
“No one has ever proved that the Bigfoot does not exist, so it must exist.�

Both sides here commit the fallacy of appealing to ignorance in that they derive unwarranted certitude when a more reserved stance seems called for. The certitude on both sides is unwarranted for there seems to be no clear way of establishing how much evidence to expect relative to what we have, nor can this determination even be made until all of the appropriate areas where such evidence would be found have been adequately surveyed. A lesser degree of certitude, or even agnosticism, is warranted here."

http://commonsenseatheism.com/wp-con...of-Atheism.pdf


One is left wondering why atheists struggle with the idea of falsifiablity, and why agnosticism, not atheism, is the default position when the inability to falsify is reached.

Again, these are basic scientific concepts, and first the rejection of a burden of support required by logic, and now the utter inability to falsify in line wit basic science. This is the reasoning behind atheism?

Te inability to tell the difference between Santa and God?

[stubbornone]

Examples of unfalsifiable entities which could be swapped with leprechauns:

• - Santa
  - Easter Bunny
  - Tooth Fairy
  - Big Foot
  - Ogopogo
  - Chupacabra
  - Satan
  - Allah
  - Angels
  - Ghosts
  - Demons

I am only going to do one, because, quite frankly, the tactic you are using is not just fallacious in the extreme, its also extraordinarily lazy in that it requires OTHERS to prove things for you rather than YOU conducting an inestigation and reaching a conclusion ... its merely a set up for an argument from absurdity, atheist baseball.

Santa claims to live in the North Pole, using the fascinating modern technology, we have mapped the North Pole, go underneath it with submarines, have air tracking control systems (both passive and active), and we have found time and again that it is parents rather than a mythical Santa that places presents under trees ... none of which detracts form the reality of a very Real Saint Nicholas upon which the more fanciful tale rests.

Ergo, its reasonable and logical to conclude that Santa is a myth.

It is even more interesting that the more fantastical claims of Santa are added merely to placate the 'secular' tendencies of atheism, who have no problem with Santa per sea ... save the utter inability to figure out why he is a myth?

Once again, if we are struggling to reach conclusions and apply logical standards to problem sets ... that is a problem for atheism.

Imagine for a second why billions would think God is quite real, but those same billions reject Santa. Now, what do you think billions of people grasp that perhaps you are not grasping that allows them, but not you, to make such a delineation?

Might this just be a fallacious appeal to the guilt by association fallacy? A desperate attempt to avoid the fact that NOTHING lead you to conclude that there is no God? And if NOTHING lead you to a conclusion ... then you don;t have one do you?

All you have is nihilism, spite for religion. And quite frankly, who cares about the emotional state of people lead by NOTHING to dislike religion?

Anyone that finds Santa at the North Pole is sworn to secrecy, so the actual location is not known. Apparently a maze of mirrors are used to deflect snow in every direction so his location can't be photographed.

God is invisible and no matter what, photography, radar, infrared, or anything else we try will not detect him. Even the Hubble telescope has not found Heaven, the place where he resides. You see how this works?

#1 - you have no evidence for that, and, as predicted it is the insertion of a random unproveable claim. Its an argument from absurdity.

Congrats, you just put atheism in the same intellectual category as the fake moon landing.

Exactly as predicted above.

#2 - Satellites cannot be sworn to secrecy.

Once again, falsifiable is checking of claims against testable results. God claims he made the universe: Can you prove he did not?

Not according to statistics, in fact, an element of design appears probable.

http://pleaseconvinceme.com/2012/eviden ... obability/

'Something' appears to answer prayers, etc.

And why should we look at that and conclude there is not God? Because atheists, in all their intellectual glory, cannot figure out how to falsify basic things? Don;t recognize arguments from absurdity when they are using them?

That is EXACTLY why I rejected atheism.